Yes it's peer reviewed.

It appears they used a very mild dose.

What do the bullshitters say?


Quote:

PEER-REVIEWED Ivermectin Prophylaxis Used for COVID-19: A Citywide, Prospective, Observational Study of 223,128 Subjects Using Propensity Score Matching Conclusions In a citywide ivermectin program with prophylactic, optional ivermectin use for COVID-19, ivermectin was associated with significantly reduced COVID-19 infection, hospitalization, and death rates from COVID-19. https://www.cureus.com/articles/82162-ivermectin-prophylaxis-used-for-covid-19-a-citywide-prospective-observational-study-of-223128-subjects-using-propensity-score-matching#conclusions

These are the conflicts of interest that the Dr's forgot to mention in the research paper and review process.

You can find articles of Dr Kerr spruiking ivermectin and critical of the Vaccine around 10 to 12 months before this research.


Quote:

Correction It has come to the attention of the journal that several authors failed to disclose all relevant conflicts of interest when submitting this article. As a result, Cureus is issuing the following erratum and updating the relevant conflict of interest disclosures to ensure these conflicts of interest are properly described as recommended by the ICMJ: Lucy Kerr: Paid consultant for both Vitamedic, an ivermectin manufacturer, and Médicos Pela Vida (MPV), an organization that promotes ivermectin as a treatment for COVID-19. Flavio A. Cadegiani: Paid consultant ($1,600.00 USD) for Vitamedic, an ivermectin manufacturer. Dr. Cadegiani is a founding member of the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC), an organization that promotes ivermectin as a treatment for COVID-19. Pierre Kory: President and Chief Medical Officer of the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC), an organization that promotes ivermectin as a treatment for COVID-19. Dr. Kory reports receiving payments from FLCCC. In February of 2022, Dr. Kory opened a private telehealth fee-based service to evaluate and treat patients with acute COVID, long haul COVID, and post-vaccination syndromes. Jennifer A. Hibberd: Co-founder of the Canadian Covid Care Alliance and World Council for Health, both of which discourage vaccination and encourage ivermectin as a treatment for COVID-19. Juan J. Chamie-Quintero: Contributor to the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC) and lists the FLCCC as his employer on his LinkedIn page. https://www.cureus.com/articles/82162-ivermectin-prophylaxis-used-for-covid-19-a-citywide-prospective-observational-study-of-223128-subjects-using-propensity-score-matching#conclusions

Clutching at straws again puddle duck?

Vitamedic manufacture more than just Ivermectin.

Nearly a quarter of a million people in that study

Baronvonrort wrote on Mar 30^th, 2022 at 11:01pm:

Clutching at straws again puddle duck? Vitamedic manufacture more than just Ivermectin. Nearly a quarter of a million people in that study

It isn't me this is the official corrections to the research paper by the Cureus journal and yes it puts doubt on the findings. The researchers lied about their connections with Ivermectin, they were all paid in one way or another by companies producing or recommending and profiting from its use.

Dnarever wrote on Mar 30^th, 2022 at 11:16pm:

Baronvonrort wrote on Mar 30th, 2022 at 11:01pm: Clutching at straws again puddle duck? Vitamedic manufacture more than just Ivermectin. Nearly a quarter of a million people in that study It isn't me this is the official corrections to the research paper by the Cureus journal and yes it puts doubt on the findings. The researchers lied about their connections with Ivermectin, they were all paid in one way or another by companies producing or recommending and profiting from its use.

It doesn't change the results you're clutching at straws.

Satoshi Omura won a Nobel prize for Ivermectin he asked Merk to fund a study. Merk said they weren't interested the US Gov gave Merk around $600 million for a new drug.

There will be a study coming out of Japan shortly done by Mr  Omura are you going to claim he has a conflict of interest because of his Nobel prize?

The pandmeic is over it really makes no difference anymore.

Will the assclowns who opposed Ivermectin take responsibility for the deaths that could have been prevented by their opposing it?

Baronvonrort wrote on Mar 30^th, 2022 at 11:30pm:

Dnarever wrote on Mar 30th, 2022 at 11:16pm: Baronvonrort wrote on Mar 30th, 2022 at 11:01pm: Clutching at straws again puddle duck? Vitamedic manufacture more than just Ivermectin. Nearly a quarter of a million people in that study It isn't me this is the official corrections to the research paper by the Cureus journal and yes it puts doubt on the findings. The researchers lied about their connections with Ivermectin, they were all paid in one way or another by companies producing or recommending and profiting from its use. It doesn't change the results you're clutching at straws. Satoshi Omura won a Nobel prize for Ivermectin he asked Merk to fund a study. Merk said they weren't interested the US Gov gave Merk around $600 million for a new drug. There will be a study coming out of Japan shortly done by Mr  Omura are you going to claim he has a conflict of interest because of his Nobel prize? The pandmeic is over it really makes no difference anymore. Will the assclowns who opposed Ivermectin take responsibility for the deaths that could have been prevented by their opposing it?

Quote:

It doesn't change the results you're clutching at straws.

You would blindly believe the results of a study after you find out that likely all the researchers had lied about their conflicts of interest?

What else did they lie about in the paper ?

Baronvonrort wrote on Mar 30^th, 2022 at 11:30pm:

Dnarever wrote on Mar 30th, 2022 at 11:16pm: Baronvonrort wrote on Mar 30th, 2022 at 11:01pm: Clutching at straws again puddle duck? Vitamedic manufacture more than just Ivermectin. Nearly a quarter of a million people in that study It isn't me this is the official corrections to the research paper by the Cureus journal and yes it puts doubt on the findings. The researchers lied about their connections with Ivermectin, they were all paid in one way or another by companies producing or recommending and profiting from its use. It doesn't change the results you're clutching at straws. Satoshi Omura won a Nobel prize for Ivermectin he asked Merk to fund a study. Merk said they weren't interested the US Gov gave Merk around $600 million for a new drug. There will be a study coming out of Japan shortly done by Mr  Omura are you going to claim he has a conflict of interest because of his Nobel prize? The pandmeic is over it really makes no difference anymore. Will the assclowns who opposed Ivermectin take responsibility for the deaths that could have been prevented by their opposing it?

Quote:

There will be a study coming out of Japan shortly done by Mr  Omura are you going to claim he has a conflict of interest because of his Nobel prize?

You expect him to lie about his Nobel Prize ? Very unlikely.

Why would a Nobel prize be a conflict of interest ? That is just silly. If he lied about a genuine conflict of interest that is very different.

Baronvonrort wrote on Mar 30^th, 2022 at 11:30pm:

Dnarever wrote on Mar 30th, 2022 at 11:16pm: Baronvonrort wrote on Mar 30th, 2022 at 11:01pm: Clutching at straws again puddle duck? Vitamedic manufacture more than just Ivermectin. Nearly a quarter of a million people in that study It isn't me this is the official corrections to the research paper by the Cureus journal and yes it puts doubt on the findings. The researchers lied about their connections with Ivermectin, they were all paid in one way or another by companies producing or recommending and profiting from its use. It doesn't change the results you're clutching at straws. Satoshi Omura won a Nobel prize for Ivermectin he asked Merk to fund a study. Merk said they weren't interested the US Gov gave Merk around $600 million for a new drug. There will be a study coming out of Japan shortly done by Mr  Omura are you going to claim he has a conflict of interest because of his Nobel prize? The pandmeic is over it really makes no difference anymore. Will the assclowns who opposed Ivermectin take responsibility for the deaths that could have been prevented by their opposing it?

Quote:

Will the assclowns who opposed Ivermectin take responsibility for the deaths that could have been prevented by their opposing it?

There is currently no valid research that supports the view that the drug is effective on Covid.

This research had to be corrected to show significant conflicts of interest. In fact a little follow up shows that at least the primaries in the research had a pre decided opinion - they had been supporting the use of this drug prior to the research and making a profit from it.

Is the research correct ? Don't know.

Can the research be trusted ? Don't know.

They found the result that they clearly wanted to find. 

This group use a shortcut pier review process.

Dnarever wrote on Mar 30^th, 2022 at 11:45pm:

Baronvonrort wrote on Mar 30th, 2022 at 11:30pm: Dnarever wrote on Mar 30th, 2022 at 11:16pm: Baronvonrort wrote on Mar 30th, 2022 at 11:01pm: Clutching at straws again puddle duck? Vitamedic manufacture more than just Ivermectin. Nearly a quarter of a million people in that study It isn't me this is the official corrections to the research paper by the Cureus journal and yes it puts doubt on the findings. The researchers lied about their connections with Ivermectin, they were all paid in one way or another by companies producing or recommending and profiting from its use. It doesn't change the results you're clutching at straws. Satoshi Omura won a Nobel prize for Ivermectin he asked Merk to fund a study. Merk said they weren't interested the US Gov gave Merk around $600 million for a new drug. There will be a study coming out of Japan shortly done by Mr  Omura are you going to claim he has a conflict of interest because of his Nobel prize? The pandmeic is over it really makes no difference anymore. Will the assclowns who opposed Ivermectin take responsibility for the deaths that could have been prevented by their opposing it? Quote: Will the assclowns who opposed Ivermectin take responsibility for the deaths that could have been prevented by their opposing it? There is currently no valid research that supports the view that the drug is effective on Covid.

More bullshit from you i don't know why i bother with idiots like you.

https://ivmmeta.com/ There are no studies that favour control group over Ivermectin.

If you click on Home with that link you will find studies for all the other drugs that have been trialled with covid.

Baronvonrort wrote on Mar 30^th, 2022 at 11:30pm:

Dnarever wrote on Mar 30th, 2022 at 11:16pm: Baronvonrort wrote on Mar 30th, 2022 at 11:01pm: Clutching at straws again puddle duck? Vitamedic manufacture more than just Ivermectin. Nearly a quarter of a million people in that study It isn't me this is the official corrections to the research paper by the Cureus journal and yes it puts doubt on the findings. The researchers lied about their connections with Ivermectin, they were all paid in one way or another by companies producing or recommending and profiting from its use. It doesn't change the results you're clutching at straws. Satoshi Omura won a Nobel prize for Ivermectin he asked Merk to fund a study. Merk said they weren't interested the US Gov gave Merk around $600 million for a new drug. There will be a study coming out of Japan shortly done by Mr  Omura are you going to claim he has a conflict of interest because of his Nobel prize? The pandmeic is over it really makes no difference anymore. Will the assclowns who opposed Ivermectin take responsibility for the deaths that could have been prevented by their opposing it?

Ah. So if it makes no difference, why did you say it?

Not funded by Ivermectin, are you?

Sound the alarm, Aquascoot, we've got a live one on our hands here, dear. Looks like Ivermectin's taken over Google's algorithms too, no? It's controlling Baron's search terms.

Despicable stuff.

Denying people medicine is a breach of human rights.

Whether it would have benefitted them or not, it would not have harmed them, so let them try it


https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3043740/

Sprintcyclist wrote on Mar 31^st, 2022 at 2:39am:

Denying people medicine is a breach of human rights. Whether it would have benefitted them or not, it would not have harmed them, so let them try it https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3043740/

Exactly. I'd like some horse tranqulizer if you don't mind.

We wouldn't want anyone denying one's equine rights, no?

Deplorable stuff.

these results wont appear in a google search.

it is doubtful that the scientists studying this have 5 billion spare to enter into an agreement with google to put this information iinto search results


the people at the TGA wont mention it either.

how can they when it would be political suicide for the government to admit they got it wrong and cost many deaths

it will be buried and the people who are invested in the vaccine (ie nearly everyone) will just double down, call it horse dewormer, call people conspiracy theorists and say

"oh look will smith just punched chris rock" ::) ::) ::)

aquascoot wrote on Mar 31^st, 2022 at 5:17am:

these results wont appear in a google search.

How COULD they ?

... when we have Big Vaccine conspiring with Big Newspaper - in cahoots with the Illuminati,
the Glitterati, the Rand Corporation, the Freemasons - and the shape shifting reptile people

all hiding the REAL cure for COVID19 from us



https://www.heraldscotland.com/resources/images/10711425.jpg




.

Baronvonrort wrote on Mar 30^th, 2022 at 11:30pm:

Dnarever wrote on Mar 30th, 2022 at 11:16pm: Baronvonrort wrote on Mar 30th, 2022 at 11:01pm: Clutching at straws again puddle duck? Vitamedic manufacture more than just Ivermectin. Nearly a quarter of a million people in that study It isn't me this is the official corrections to the research paper by the Cureus journal and yes it puts doubt on the findings. The researchers lied about their connections with Ivermectin, they were all paid in one way or another by companies producing or recommending and profiting from its use. It doesn't change the results you're clutching at straws.

Aren't you part of the crowd who instantly dismisses anything if you can show a link, or make up a link, between the author and say Pfizer?

But all of a sudden links like this don't matter if you like the conclusions reached?

https://c.tenor.com/JFymrymJG1oAAAAM/pretend-shocked.gif

We all wanted proof that ivermectin is an effective treatment, it's cheap and we are aware of the known side effects etc.

But if you're not going to apply the same scrutiny to the findings you like about ivermectin as you do the findings you dislike, or say the research done about the vaccines, then it's not proof you're looking for but instead validation.

Don't confuse the two, they're not the same.

Incorrect Skippy

Do you really think that pfizer and moderna are hoping and praying ivermectin works

Do you really think that the mainstream media and our tga are hoping and praying that ivermectin works

You think they will be happy to stand up and tell the public

Oops

Sorry about those 6 million dead
Sorry we banned doctors for trying to prescribe it
Sorry we called horse dewormer

But hey look on the bright side
Booster number five is soon available

Just continue to double down on your vaccine
You and the mainstream media the government and the pharmaceutical industry have come too far to go back now

SadKangaroo wrote on Mar 31^st, 2022 at 7:40am:

Baronvonrort wrote on Mar 30th, 2022 at 11:30pm: Dnarever wrote on Mar 30th, 2022 at 11:16pm: Baronvonrort wrote on Mar 30th, 2022 at 11:01pm: Clutching at straws again puddle duck? Vitamedic manufacture more than just Ivermectin. Nearly a quarter of a million people in that study It isn't me this is the official corrections to the research paper by the Cureus journal and yes it puts doubt on the findings. The researchers lied about their connections with Ivermectin, they were all paid in one way or another by companies producing or recommending and profiting from its use. It doesn't change the results you're clutching at straws. Aren't you part of the crowd who instantly dismisses anything if you can show a link, or make up a link, between the author and say Pfizer? But all of a sudden links like this don't matter if you like the conclusions reached? https://c.tenor.com/JFymrymJG1oAAAAM/pretend-shocked.gif We all wanted proof that ivermectin is an effective treatment, it's cheap and we are aware of the known side effects etc. But if you're not going to apply the same scrutiny to the findings you like about ivermectin as you do the findings you dislike, or say the research done about the vaccines, then it's not proof you're looking for but instead validation. Don't confuse the two, they're not the same.

Aren't you the multi shared troll Mong who invents litigation cases which never happened? You're pushing that wheelchair of malevolent intent uphill as you struggle with your conscience about what you've been ordered to believe by mass machine gunning media messages.

Many of us were once like you. We woke up eventually. And the brutal reality hit us hard. Once we understood all the pieces of the puzzle and why professional lawyers and doctors were no longer able to practice. And make no mistake both those professions are inextricably linked.

The Hippocratic Oath has become The Hypocritical Oath. And those who dare to stand up and be counted ... THEY are the ones taking on the lie and taking their accusers to court! Not the other way around as you keep stating in the topic next door!

SadKangaroo wrote on Mar 31^st, 2022 at 7:40am:

Baronvonrort wrote on Mar 30th, 2022 at 11:30pm: Dnarever wrote on Mar 30th, 2022 at 11:16pm: Baronvonrort wrote on Mar 30th, 2022 at 11:01pm: Clutching at straws again puddle duck? Vitamedic manufacture more than just Ivermectin. Nearly a quarter of a million people in that study It isn't me this is the official corrections to the research paper by the Cureus journal and yes it puts doubt on the findings. The researchers lied about their connections with Ivermectin, they were all paid in one way or another by companies producing or recommending and profiting from its use. It doesn't change the results you're clutching at straws. Aren't you part of the crowd who instantly dismisses anything if you can show a link, or make up a link, between the author and say Pfizer? But all of a sudden links like this don't matter if you like the conclusions reached? https://c.tenor.com/JFymrymJG1oAAAAM/pretend-shocked.gif We all wanted proof that ivermectin is an effective treatment, it's cheap and we are aware of the known side effects etc. But if you're not going to apply the same scrutiny to the findings you like about ivermectin as you do the findings you dislike, or say the research done about the vaccines, then it's not proof you're looking for but instead validation. Don't confuse the two, they're not the same.

Bingo!

Lisa Jones wrote on Mar 31^st, 2022 at 8:05am:

SadKangaroo wrote on Mar 31st, 2022 at 7:40am: Baronvonrort wrote on Mar 30th, 2022 at 11:30pm: Dnarever wrote on Mar 30th, 2022 at 11:16pm: Baronvonrort wrote on Mar 30th, 2022 at 11:01pm: Clutching at straws again puddle duck? Vitamedic manufacture more than just Ivermectin. Nearly a quarter of a million people in that study It isn't me this is the official corrections to the research paper by the Cureus journal and yes it puts doubt on the findings. The researchers lied about their connections with Ivermectin, they were all paid in one way or another by companies producing or recommending and profiting from its use. It doesn't change the results you're clutching at straws. Aren't you part of the crowd who instantly dismisses anything if you can show a link, or make up a link, between the author and say Pfizer? But all of a sudden links like this don't matter if you like the conclusions reached? https://c.tenor.com/JFymrymJG1oAAAAM/pretend-shocked.gif We all wanted proof that ivermectin is an effective treatment, it's cheap and we are aware of the known side effects etc. But if you're not going to apply the same scrutiny to the findings you like about ivermectin as you do the findings you dislike, or say the research done about the vaccines, then it's not proof you're looking for but instead validation. Don't confuse the two, they're not the same. Aren't you the multi shared troll Mong who invents litigation cases which never happened? You're pushing that wheelchair of malevolent intent uphill as you struggle with your conscience about what you've been ordered to believe by mass machine gunning media messages. Many of us were once like you. We woke up eventually. And the brutal reality hit us hard. Once we understood all the pieces of the puzzle and why professional lawyers and doctors were no longer able to practice. And make no mistake both those professions are inextricably linked. The Hippocratic Oath has become The Hypocritical Oath. And those who dare to stand up and be counted ... THEY are the ones taking on the lie and taking their accusers to court! Not the other way around as you keep stating in the topic next door!

For the benefit of those individuals who sit in the id Sad Kangapoo


Lisa Jones wrote on Mar 30^th, 2022 at 10:12pm:

Sprintcyclist wrote on Mar 30th, 2022 at 9:03pm: Lisa Jones wrote on Mar 30th, 2022 at 8:19pm: https://youtu.be/cX8szNPgrEs For the children of Ukraine. For ALL children of this sad and sorry world. I do not understand that song Sprint I love your honesty. This song touched my heart when it was first released in 1998. Yes ... some 24 years ago 😔 The song is about the effect of totalitarianism on humanity esp the children ... the future of humanity. Totalitarianism comes in 2 forms : fascism and communism. These extreme forms of control on people aren't that much different as they become more and more extreme. The clip explores these effects. Total control leads to facelessness and to automaton type humans who lack individuality and identity. Such people comply one by one to instructions like obedient robots attached to electricity. In fact everything is controlled by electricity. Once the switch is turned off nothing exists or can exist. It's totally reliant on that form of power and control. The irony in that clip is that we aren't really alive anyway. We are made to believe we are alive. We go through the motions of real life but it's all just a sanitised version of reality that we've been allowed to live in and believe in. The masks over the face in that clip relate to the fact that we can't breathe normal natural air as it's become too dangerous. Our mind's eyes are blinded so we are effectively walking around with no eyes. We function according to instruction in a sanitized environment covered in plastic so as to be safe from killer germs/viruses. That's why there's a lot of plastic covered and sealed off instruments everywhere. Which brings us to people sitting around what appears to be natural clean water. Except it's anything but natural and clean. It's filthy and can't be drunk. It's tainted red. Why? People have died in this type of world order. Lots of people have died so much so the evidence of the REAL level of bloodshed is creeping through any which way it can in the vain hope it will wake the blind who can't see the truth because they no longer possess the physical ability to see through the convincing propaganda that shapes and controls their reality. Ultimately this seals the fate of humanity as the children are brought up in this NEW NORMAL "reality" and all they know is to obey when told. No free thinking exists anymore. Note : This song was written in 1998. It may as well have been a prophecy. Oh wait .... the band was called THE manic street PREACHERS 😔

aquascoot wrote on Mar 31^st, 2022 at 8:02am:

Incorrect Skippy Do you really think that pfizer and moderna are hoping and praying ivermectin works

I don't care what they want, I'm not obsessed with them nor do I base my sense of reality around what I think, they think.

What I want is a treatment for COVID, 2 years ago, that would mean no need for vaccines, no need for quarantine, lockdowns or isolations. 


Quote:

Do you really think that the mainstream media and our tga are hoping and praying that ivermectin works

Again, unlike you, I am capable of thinking for myself and I don't care what the opinions of the "MSM" are.


Quote:

You think they will be happy to stand up and tell the public

I don't care if they're happy.  You're obsessing over the wrong thing mate...


Quote:

Oops Sorry about those 6 million dead Sorry we banned doctors for trying to prescribe it Sorry we called horse dewormer But hey look on the bright side Booster number five is soon available Just continue to double down on your vaccine You and the mainstream media the government and the pharmaceutical industry have come too far to go back now

If Ivermectin worked, it would be easy to prove.  It would be a great arrow in the quiver against COVID.

But the way in which it's been publicised by certain people and groups, while its effectiveness is unproven, it costs lives.

The risks of the side effects are increased in the way that COVID attacks the body, but that's not the worst part.  People are being convinced to rely on Ivermectin and the other quack cures instead of traditional medicine that can actually save them.

They're dying for nothing but the greed of grifters.  It's exactly what you hate about big pharma, only you're a part of the "grassroots" grift.  Pushing Ivermectin through the use of conspiracy theories hoping to convince people to not trust anything mainstream and push them towards the grifters who need the views and the donations to profit from their con who are happy to tell you whatever it is you want to hear, so long as they keep getting paid.

Thankfully you and the sheep like you, don't have the same influence of big pharma.  It's bad enough that they exist in the form in which they do to also have the likes of you pushing those who don't trust big pharma to an early grave.

Distrust in big pharma, big anything, is healthy.  But using that distrust to grift people...  Nah, poor form.

Countries all over the world want to have the least impact from COVID both on the people and especially on their budgets and their election chances, especially in the less developed world.

Big Pharma doesn't have the war chest to bribe them all.

All of those out there and in this thread who don't trust big pharma have a set of criteria as to why.  Rules and standards they judge content they don't like are clear.  I'm one of them.

Where you and I differ is that I apply that standard across the board.  You and those like you don't.

Would you accept the efficacy of a vaccine based on research as flimsy as what you're holding up here as proof Ivermectin works?

I mean honestly, really would you?!

Well?

Lisa Jones wrote on Mar 31^st, 2022 at 8:05am:

SadKangaroo wrote on Mar 31st, 2022 at 7:40am: Baronvonrort wrote on Mar 30th, 2022 at 11:30pm: Dnarever wrote on Mar 30th, 2022 at 11:16pm: Baronvonrort wrote on Mar 30th, 2022 at 11:01pm: Clutching at straws again puddle duck? Vitamedic manufacture more than just Ivermectin. Nearly a quarter of a million people in that study It isn't me this is the official corrections to the research paper by the Cureus journal and yes it puts doubt on the findings. The researchers lied about their connections with Ivermectin, they were all paid in one way or another by companies producing or recommending and profiting from its use. It doesn't change the results you're clutching at straws. Aren't you part of the crowd who instantly dismisses anything if you can show a link, or make up a link, between the author and say Pfizer? But all of a sudden links like this don't matter if you like the conclusions reached? https://c.tenor.com/JFymrymJG1oAAAAM/pretend-shocked.gif We all wanted proof that ivermectin is an effective treatment, it's cheap and we are aware of the known side effects etc. But if you're not going to apply the same scrutiny to the findings you like about ivermectin as you do the findings you dislike, or say the research done about the vaccines, then it's not proof you're looking for but instead validation. Don't confuse the two, they're not the same. Aren't you the multi shared troll Mong who invents litigation cases which never happened? You're pushing that wheelchair of malevolent intent uphill as you struggle with your conscience about what you've been ordered to believe by mass machine gunning media messages. Many of us were once like you. We woke up eventually. And the brutal reality hit us hard. Once we understood all the pieces of the puzzle and why professional lawyers and doctors were no longer able to practice. And make no mistake both those professions are inextricably linked. The Hippocratic Oath has become The Hypocritical Oath. And those who dare to stand up and be counted ... THEY are the ones taking on the lie and taking their accusers to court! Not the other way around as you keep stating in the topic next door!

Can you stop stalking me? 

I'm one of the few people here without any fake accounts, it's just me.  We can have a differing opinion, we don't all have to agree, but you're starting to dive head first into what the eSaftey Commissioner outlines as cyberbullying.

I don't understand your obsession with me, but it's starting to get uncomfortable.

SadKangaroo wrote on Mar 31^st, 2022 at 8:34am:

Lisa Jones wrote on Mar 31st, 2022 at 8:05am: SadKangaroo wrote on Mar 31st, 2022 at 7:40am: Baronvonrort wrote on Mar 30th, 2022 at 11:30pm: Dnarever wrote on Mar 30th, 2022 at 11:16pm: Baronvonrort wrote on Mar 30th, 2022 at 11:01pm: Clutching at straws again puddle duck? Vitamedic manufacture more than just Ivermectin. Nearly a quarter of a million people in that study It isn't me this is the official corrections to the research paper by the Cureus journal and yes it puts doubt on the findings. The researchers lied about their connections with Ivermectin, they were all paid in one way or another by companies producing or recommending and profiting from its use. It doesn't change the results you're clutching at straws. Aren't you part of the crowd who instantly dismisses anything if you can show a link, or make up a link, between the author and say Pfizer? But all of a sudden links like this don't matter if you like the conclusions reached? https://c.tenor.com/JFymrymJG1oAAAAM/pretend-shocked.gif We all wanted proof that ivermectin is an effective treatment, it's cheap and we are aware of the known side effects etc. But if you're not going to apply the same scrutiny to the findings you like about ivermectin as you do the findings you dislike, or say the research done about the vaccines, then it's not proof you're looking for but instead validation. Don't confuse the two, they're not the same. Aren't you the multi shared troll Mong who invents litigation cases which never happened? You're pushing that wheelchair of malevolent intent uphill as you struggle with your conscience about what you've been ordered to believe by mass machine gunning media messages. Many of us were once like you. We woke up eventually. And the brutal reality hit us hard. Once we understood all the pieces of the puzzle and why professional lawyers and doctors were no longer able to practice. And make no mistake both those professions are inextricably linked. The Hippocratic Oath has become The Hypocritical Oath. And those who dare to stand up and be counted ... THEY are the ones taking on the lie and taking their accusers to court! Not the other way around as you keep stating in the topic next door! Can you stop stalking me?  I'm one of the few people here without any fake accounts, it's just me.  We can have a differing opinion, we don't all have to agree, but you're starting to dive head first into what the eSaftey Commissioner outlines as cyberbullying. I don't understand your obsession with me, but it's starting to get uncomfortable.

Similarly, I have just one account here.

However, Lisa seems certain that I run several socks.

And it's not just you and me - she makes this accusation about several forum members.

Not sure where her paranoia stems from.

greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 31^st, 2022 at 8:39am:

SadKangaroo wrote on Mar 31st, 2022 at 8:34am: Lisa Jones wrote on Mar 31st, 2022 at 8:05am: SadKangaroo wrote on Mar 31st, 2022 at 7:40am: Baronvonrort wrote on Mar 30th, 2022 at 11:30pm: Dnarever wrote on Mar 30th, 2022 at 11:16pm: Baronvonrort wrote on Mar 30th, 2022 at 11:01pm: Clutching at straws again puddle duck? Vitamedic manufacture more than just Ivermectin. Nearly a quarter of a million people in that study It isn't me this is the official corrections to the research paper by the Cureus journal and yes it puts doubt on the findings. The researchers lied about their connections with Ivermectin, they were all paid in one way or another by companies producing or recommending and profiting from its use. It doesn't change the results you're clutching at straws. Aren't you part of the crowd who instantly dismisses anything if you can show a link, or make up a link, between the author and say Pfizer? But all of a sudden links like this don't matter if you like the conclusions reached? https://c.tenor.com/JFymrymJG1oAAAAM/pretend-shocked.gif We all wanted proof that ivermectin is an effective treatment, it's cheap and we are aware of the known side effects etc. But if you're not going to apply the same scrutiny to the findings you like about ivermectin as you do the findings you dislike, or say the research done about the vaccines, then it's not proof you're looking for but instead validation. Don't confuse the two, they're not the same. Aren't you the multi shared troll Mong who invents litigation cases which never happened? You're pushing that wheelchair of malevolent intent uphill as you struggle with your conscience about what you've been ordered to believe by mass machine gunning media messages. Many of us were once like you. We woke up eventually. And the brutal reality hit us hard. Once we understood all the pieces of the puzzle and why professional lawyers and doctors were no longer able to practice. And make no mistake both those professions are inextricably linked. The Hippocratic Oath has become The Hypocritical Oath. And those who dare to stand up and be counted ... THEY are the ones taking on the lie and taking their accusers to court! Not the other way around as you keep stating in the topic next door! Can you stop stalking me?  I'm one of the few people here without any fake accounts, it's just me.  We can have a differing opinion, we don't all have to agree, but you're starting to dive head first into what the eSaftey Commissioner outlines as cyberbullying. I don't understand your obsession with me, but it's starting to get uncomfortable. Similarly, I have just one account here. However, Lisa seems certain that I run several socks. And it's not just you and me - she makes this accusation about several forum members. Not sure where her paranoia stems from.

It happens with conspiracy theorists when they run into people who stand up for the truth and the facts.  It's always counter to what they believe and they take it personally, thinking people are out to get them.

It's bad enough when it happens with random posters online, but it starts being tragic when they act this way towards their family :(

SadKangaroo wrote on Mar 31^st, 2022 at 8:34am:

Lisa Jones wrote on Mar 31st, 2022 at 8:05am: SadKangaroo wrote on Mar 31st, 2022 at 7:40am: Baronvonrort wrote on Mar 30th, 2022 at 11:30pm: Dnarever wrote on Mar 30th, 2022 at 11:16pm: Baronvonrort wrote on Mar 30th, 2022 at 11:01pm: Clutching at straws again puddle duck? Vitamedic manufacture more than just Ivermectin. Nearly a quarter of a million people in that study It isn't me this is the official corrections to the research paper by the Cureus journal and yes it puts doubt on the findings. The researchers lied about their connections with Ivermectin, they were all paid in one way or another by companies producing or recommending and profiting from its use. It doesn't change the results you're clutching at straws. Aren't you part of the crowd who instantly dismisses anything if you can show a link, or make up a link, between the author and say Pfizer? But all of a sudden links like this don't matter if you like the conclusions reached? https://c.tenor.com/JFymrymJG1oAAAAM/pretend-shocked.gif We all wanted proof that ivermectin is an effective treatment, it's cheap and we are aware of the known side effects etc. But if you're not going to apply the same scrutiny to the findings you like about ivermectin as you do the findings you dislike, or say the research done about the vaccines, then it's not proof you're looking for but instead validation. Don't confuse the two, they're not the same. Aren't you the multi shared troll Mong who invents litigation cases which never happened? You're pushing that wheelchair of malevolent intent uphill as you struggle with your conscience about what you've been ordered to believe by mass machine gunning media messages. Many of us were once like you. We woke up eventually. And the brutal reality hit us hard. Once we understood all the pieces of the puzzle and why professional lawyers and doctors were no longer able to practice. And make no mistake both those professions are inextricably linked. The Hippocratic Oath has become The Hypocritical Oath. And those who dare to stand up and be counted ... THEY are the ones taking on the lie and taking their accusers to court! Not the other way around as you keep stating in the topic next door! Can you stop stalking me?  I'm one of the few people here without any fake accounts, it's just me.  We can have a differing opinion, we don't all have to agree, but you're starting to dive head first into what the eSaftey Commissioner outlines as cyberbullying. I don't understand your obsession with me, but it's starting to get uncomfortable.

Stop with the pathetic histrionics which only turn up when you've been pwned!

You should feel uncomfortable when your BS is called out. And you should feel uncomfortable when you post links which undermine the BS you post NOT support it.

You should feel uncomfortable when you're outted for illogic reasoning.

You should feel uncomfortable when you slur others online based on lies which are not substantiated by links you hope people won't click on.

Now .... read my last post. Notice what I stated to you? Stop deflecting and respond to the posts directed at you. Otherwise go post in some cooking topic. And even there you had better not post BS either.

greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 31^st, 2022 at 8:39am:

SadKangaroo wrote on Mar 31st, 2022 at 8:34am: Lisa Jones wrote on Mar 31st, 2022 at 8:05am: SadKangaroo wrote on Mar 31st, 2022 at 7:40am: Baronvonrort wrote on Mar 30th, 2022 at 11:30pm: Dnarever wrote on Mar 30th, 2022 at 11:16pm: Baronvonrort wrote on Mar 30th, 2022 at 11:01pm: Clutching at straws again puddle duck? Vitamedic manufacture more than just Ivermectin. Nearly a quarter of a million people in that study It isn't me this is the official corrections to the research paper by the Cureus journal and yes it puts doubt on the findings. The researchers lied about their connections with Ivermectin, they were all paid in one way or another by companies producing or recommending and profiting from its use. It doesn't change the results you're clutching at straws. Aren't you part of the crowd who instantly dismisses anything if you can show a link, or make up a link, between the author and say Pfizer? But all of a sudden links like this don't matter if you like the conclusions reached? https://c.tenor.com/JFymrymJG1oAAAAM/pretend-shocked.gif We all wanted proof that ivermectin is an effective treatment, it's cheap and we are aware of the known side effects etc. But if you're not going to apply the same scrutiny to the findings you like about ivermectin as you do the findings you dislike, or say the research done about the vaccines, then it's not proof you're looking for but instead validation. Don't confuse the two, they're not the same. Aren't you the multi shared troll Mong who invents litigation cases which never happened? You're pushing that wheelchair of malevolent intent uphill as you struggle with your conscience about what you've been ordered to believe by mass machine gunning media messages. Many of us were once like you. We woke up eventually. And the brutal reality hit us hard. Once we understood all the pieces of the puzzle and why professional lawyers and doctors were no longer able to practice. And make no mistake both those professions are inextricably linked. The Hippocratic Oath has become The Hypocritical Oath. And those who dare to stand up and be counted ... THEY are the ones taking on the lie and taking their accusers to court! Not the other way around as you keep stating in the topic next door! Can you stop stalking me?  I'm one of the few people here without any fake accounts, it's just me.  We can have a differing opinion, we don't all have to agree, but you're starting to dive head first into what the eSaftey Commissioner outlines as cyberbullying. I don't understand your obsession with me, but it's starting to get uncomfortable. Similarly, I have just one account here. However, Lisa seems certain that I run several socks. And it's not just you and me - she makes this accusation about several forum members. Not sure where her paranoia stems from.

Might just leave this BS here. For the rest of OzPol to read and laugh at.

Groggy .... get your insane head tested. You've been outed that many times (and that's just in the 15 yrs that I know you) 😂🤣😆

Larry .... get your insane head tested.

I am not Sad Kangaroo—it is your insanity that says I am Sad Kangaroo, nothing more. Your insane drivel cannot be helping OzPol thrive.

SadKangaroo wrote on Mar 31^st, 2022 at 7:40am:

Baronvonrort wrote on Mar 30th, 2022 at 11:30pm: Dnarever wrote on Mar 30th, 2022 at 11:16pm: Baronvonrort wrote on Mar 30th, 2022 at 11:01pm: Clutching at straws again puddle duck? Vitamedic manufacture more than just Ivermectin. Nearly a quarter of a million people in that study It isn't me this is the official corrections to the research paper by the Cureus journal and yes it puts doubt on the findings. The researchers lied about their connections with Ivermectin, they were all paid in one way or another by companies producing or recommending and profiting from its use. It doesn't change the results you're clutching at straws. Aren't you part of the crowd who instantly dismisses anything if you can show a link, or make up a link, between the author and say Pfizer? But all of a sudden links like this don't matter if you like the conclusions reached? We all wanted proof that ivermectin is an effective treatment, it's cheap and we are aware of the known side effects etc. But if you're not going to apply the same scrutiny to the findings you like about ivermectin as you do the findings you dislike, or say the research done about the vaccines, then it's not proof you're looking for but instead validation. Don't confuse the two, they're not the same.

There is plenty of evidence Ivermectin is an effective treatment which proves people like you are deaf dumb and blind when you choose to ignore it.

Here are 81 studies which show Ivermectin works not a single study in this list favours the control group over Ivermectin. https://ivmmeta.com/ If you click on Home with that link you will find studies on all the other drugs trialled with covid.

There are no real side effects with Ivermectin it's safer than Paracetamol which is what doctors tell you to take when you catch covid.

It's funny how people like you push Pfizer which hasn't been peer reviewed.
How can it be peer reviewed when data hasn't been released?

Pfizer wanted 55 years to release data then tried to increase it to 75 years before Mr Siri took them to court demanding immediate release of Data. If Pfizer has nothing to hide why should we wait till everyone who has taken might die before data gets released.

The elephant in the room is why do they need 75 years to release Pfizer data?

Pick your source and educate yourself.
https://www.google.com.au/search?q=pfizer+75+years+to+release+vaccine+data&source=hp&ei=1OFEYsLvLbKw2roPzoGcuAk&iflsig=AHkkrS4AAAAAYkTv5DAXrg-ykyUx0CcwrCPTfClIdZWZ&oq=pfizer+75+years&gs_lcp=Cgdnd3Mtd2l6EAEYAjIFCAAQgAQyBQgAEIAEMgUIABCABDIFCAAQgAQyBQgAEIAEMgUIABCABDIFCAAQgAQyBQgAEIAEMgUIABCABDoLCAAQgAQQsQMQgwE6CAgAELEDEIMBOg4ILhCABBCxAxDHARCjAjoLCC4QgAQQxwEQowI6CAgAEIAEELEDOgQIABADUABYkChgmkJoAHAAeACAAfEBiAGGFZIBBjAuMTIuM5gBAKABAQ&sclient=gws-wiz

Baronvonrort wrote on Mar 31^st, 2022 at 9:43am:

SadKangaroo wrote on Mar 31st, 2022 at 7:40am: Baronvonrort wrote on Mar 30th, 2022 at 11:30pm: Dnarever wrote on Mar 30th, 2022 at 11:16pm: Baronvonrort wrote on Mar 30th, 2022 at 11:01pm: Clutching at straws again puddle duck? Vitamedic manufacture more than just Ivermectin. Nearly a quarter of a million people in that study It isn't me this is the official corrections to the research paper by the Cureus journal and yes it puts doubt on the findings. The researchers lied about their connections with Ivermectin, they were all paid in one way or another by companies producing or recommending and profiting from its use. It doesn't change the results you're clutching at straws. Aren't you part of the crowd who instantly dismisses anything if you can show a link, or make up a link, between the author and say Pfizer? But all of a sudden links like this don't matter if you like the conclusions reached? We all wanted proof that ivermectin is an effective treatment, it's cheap and we are aware of the known side effects etc. But if you're not going to apply the same scrutiny to the findings you like about ivermectin as you do the findings you dislike, or say the research done about the vaccines, then it's not proof you're looking for but instead validation. Don't confuse the two, they're not the same. There is plenty of evidence Ivermectin is an effective treatment ...

Sure.

Not for COVID though.

greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 31^st, 2022 at 9:48am:

Baronvonrort wrote on Mar 31st, 2022 at 9:43am: SadKangaroo wrote on Mar 31st, 2022 at 7:40am: Baronvonrort wrote on Mar 30th, 2022 at 11:30pm: Dnarever wrote on Mar 30th, 2022 at 11:16pm: Baronvonrort wrote on Mar 30th, 2022 at 11:01pm: Clutching at straws again puddle duck? Vitamedic manufacture more than just Ivermectin. Nearly a quarter of a million people in that study It isn't me this is the official corrections to the research paper by the Cureus journal and yes it puts doubt on the findings. The researchers lied about their connections with Ivermectin, they were all paid in one way or another by companies producing or recommending and profiting from its use. It doesn't change the results you're clutching at straws. Aren't you part of the crowd who instantly dismisses anything if you can show a link, or make up a link, between the author and say Pfizer? But all of a sudden links like this don't matter if you like the conclusions reached? We all wanted proof that ivermectin is an effective treatment, it's cheap and we are aware of the known side effects etc. But if you're not going to apply the same scrutiny to the findings you like about ivermectin as you do the findings you dislike, or say the research done about the vaccines, then it's not proof you're looking for but instead validation. Don't confuse the two, they're not the same. There is plenty of evidence Ivermectin is an effective treatment ... Sure. Not for COVID though.

Hey skip

You said we would ALL be happy if ivermectin worked

You reckon Greg would  ;D ;D ;D ;D

Baronvonrort wrote on Mar 31^st, 2022 at 9:43am:

SadKangaroo wrote on Mar 31st, 2022 at 7:40am: Baronvonrort wrote on Mar 30th, 2022 at 11:30pm: Dnarever wrote on Mar 30th, 2022 at 11:16pm: Baronvonrort wrote on Mar 30th, 2022 at 11:01pm: Clutching at straws again puddle duck? Vitamedic manufacture more than just Ivermectin. Nearly a quarter of a million people in that study It isn't me this is the official corrections to the research paper by the Cureus journal and yes it puts doubt on the findings. The researchers lied about their connections with Ivermectin, they were all paid in one way or another by companies producing or recommending and profiting from its use. It doesn't change the results you're clutching at straws. Aren't you part of the crowd who instantly dismisses anything if you can show a link, or make up a link, between the author and say Pfizer? But all of a sudden links like this don't matter if you like the conclusions reached? We all wanted proof that ivermectin is an effective treatment, it's cheap and we are aware of the known side effects etc. But if you're not going to apply the same scrutiny to the findings you like about ivermectin as you do the findings you dislike, or say the research done about the vaccines, then it's not proof you're looking for but instead validation. Don't confuse the two, they're not the same. There is plenty of evidence Ivermectin is an effective treatment which proves people like you are deaf dumb and blind when you choose to ignore it. Here are 81 studies which show Ivermectin works not a single study in this list favours the control group over Ivermectin. https://ivmmeta.com/ If you click on Home with that link you will find studies on all the other drugs trialled with covid. There are no real side effects with Ivermectin it's safer than Paracetamol which is what doctors tell you to take when you catch covid. It's funny how people like you push Pfizer which hasn't been peer reviewed. How can it be peer reviewed when data hasn't been released? Pfizer wanted 55 years to release data then tried to increase it to 75 years before Mr Siri took them to court demanding immediate release of Data. If Pfizer has nothing to hide why should we wait till everyone who has taken might die before data gets released. The elephant in the room is why do they need 75 years to release Pfizer data? Pick your source and educate yourself. https://www.google.com.au/search?q=pfizer+75+years+to+release+vaccine+data&source=hp&ei=1OFEYsLvLbKw2roPzoGcuAk&iflsig=AHkkrS4AAAAAYkTv5DAXrg-ykyUx0CcwrCPTfClIdZWZ&oq=pfizer+75+years&gs_lcp=Cgdnd3Mtd2l6EAEYAjIFCAAQgAQyBQgAEIAEMgUIABCABDIFCAAQgAQyBQgAEIAEMgUIABCABDIFCAAQgAQyBQgAEIAEMgUIABCABDoLCAAQgAQQsQMQgwE6CAgAELEDEIMBOg4ILhCABBCxAxDHARCjAjoLCC4QgAQQxwEQowI6CAgAEIAEELEDOgQIABADUABYkChgmkJoAHAAeACAAfEBiAGGFZIBBjAuMTIuM5gBAKABAQ&sclient=gws-wiz

If you have to start talking about Pfizer when we're talking about Ivermectin, you have a problem.  It has nothing to do with them.

aquascoot wrote on Mar 31^st, 2022 at 10:02am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 31st, 2022 at 9:48am: Baronvonrort wrote on Mar 31st, 2022 at 9:43am: SadKangaroo wrote on Mar 31st, 2022 at 7:40am: Baronvonrort wrote on Mar 30th, 2022 at 11:30pm: Dnarever wrote on Mar 30th, 2022 at 11:16pm: Baronvonrort wrote on Mar 30th, 2022 at 11:01pm: Clutching at straws again puddle duck? Vitamedic manufacture more than just Ivermectin. Nearly a quarter of a million people in that study It isn't me this is the official corrections to the research paper by the Cureus journal and yes it puts doubt on the findings. The researchers lied about their connections with Ivermectin, they were all paid in one way or another by companies producing or recommending and profiting from its use. It doesn't change the results you're clutching at straws. Aren't you part of the crowd who instantly dismisses anything if you can show a link, or make up a link, between the author and say Pfizer? But all of a sudden links like this don't matter if you like the conclusions reached? We all wanted proof that ivermectin is an effective treatment, it's cheap and we are aware of the known side effects etc. But if you're not going to apply the same scrutiny to the findings you like about ivermectin as you do the findings you dislike, or say the research done about the vaccines, then it's not proof you're looking for but instead validation. Don't confuse the two, they're not the same. There is plenty of evidence Ivermectin is an effective treatment ... Sure. Not for COVID though. Hey skip You said we would ALL be happy if ivermectin worked You reckon Greg would  ;D ;D ;D ;D

Judging by what he's said in the past, yes.

We all want better treatment for COVID.

It just needs to actually be proven to work as many people thanks to the political nature of COVID, will do, say and take anything so long as it aligned with their politics and some how conservatism has taken the anti-intellectual route on such an important issue, so before the treatments are publicised they need to be proven to work as these people will do whatever they can to take them so they can run counter to the mainstream, because reasons?

Jovial Monk wrote on Mar 31^st, 2022 at 9:36am:

Larry .... get your insane head tested. I am not Sad Kangaroo—it is your insanity that says I am Sad Kangaroo, nothing more. Your insane drivel cannot be helping OzPol thrive.

It is just one more conspiracy theory  - among conspiracy theorists - that anyone who disagrees with them has multiple identities

I'm a bit hurt, that I haven't been paired of with any other ID - as yet




.


.

Oh, your turn will come!  ;D ;D ;D

buzzanddidj wrote on Mar 31^st, 2022 at 10:42am:

Jovial Monk wrote on Mar 31st, 2022 at 9:36am: Larry .... get your insane head tested. I am not Sad Kangaroo—it is your insanity that says I am Sad Kangaroo, nothing more. Your insane drivel cannot be helping OzPol thrive. It is just one more conspiracy theory  - among conspiracy theorists - that anyone who disagrees with them has multiple identities I'm a bit hurt, that I haven't been paired of with any other ID - as yet . .

There are about 5 people who routinely claim anyone who disagrees with them use multiple identities, In fact they are mostly all Gregory. They cannot even see that this is statistically close to not possible.

I am sure that if you provide facts to show any of these characters are wrong as is routinely the case you will also be a Greggory sock.

Gregory is Jim lahey but I believe the marsupial is a separate species

Dnarever wrote on Mar 31^st, 2022 at 11:05am:

I am sure that if you provide facts to show any of these characters are wrong as is routinely the case you will also be a Greggory sock.

I'd take that as a COMPLIMENT
He's probably the most researched poster ON here
I guess that's why he 'gets up the nose' of so many resident conspiracy theorists





.

aquascoot wrote on Mar 31^st, 2022 at 11:25am:

Gregory is Jim lahey but I believe the marsupial is a separate species

Claiming that Greg is Jim is about the same (maybe less likely) than saying Aquascoot is Lisa.

Are you?

bobby and myself saw the evidence where bobby posed a question to greg who then replied in the first person but had logged on as jim

the evidence was crystal clear

aquascoot wrote on Mar 31^st, 2022 at 12:11pm:

bobby and myself saw the evidence where bobby posed a question to greg who then replied in the first person but had logged on as jim the evidence was crystal clear

Conspiracy theorists have WAY too much idle time on their hands

They REALLY need to "get a life"




.

Lisa Jones wrote on Mar 31^st, 2022 at 8:53am:

SadKangaroo wrote on Mar 31st, 2022 at 8:34am: Lisa Jones wrote on Mar 31st, 2022 at 8:05am: SadKangaroo wrote on Mar 31st, 2022 at 7:40am: Baronvonrort wrote on Mar 30th, 2022 at 11:30pm: Dnarever wrote on Mar 30th, 2022 at 11:16pm: Baronvonrort wrote on Mar 30th, 2022 at 11:01pm: Clutching at straws again puddle duck? Vitamedic manufacture more than just Ivermectin. Nearly a quarter of a million people in that study It isn't me this is the official corrections to the research paper by the Cureus journal and yes it puts doubt on the findings. The researchers lied about their connections with Ivermectin, they were all paid in one way or another by companies producing or recommending and profiting from its use. It doesn't change the results you're clutching at straws. Aren't you part of the crowd who instantly dismisses anything if you can show a link, or make up a link, between the author and say Pfizer? But all of a sudden links like this don't matter if you like the conclusions reached? https://c.tenor.com/JFymrymJG1oAAAAM/pretend-shocked.gif We all wanted proof that ivermectin is an effective treatment, it's cheap and we are aware of the known side effects etc. But if you're not going to apply the same scrutiny to the findings you like about ivermectin as you do the findings you dislike, or say the research done about the vaccines, then it's not proof you're looking for but instead validation. Don't confuse the two, they're not the same. Aren't you the multi shared troll Mong who invents litigation cases which never happened? You're pushing that wheelchair of malevolent intent uphill as you struggle with your conscience about what you've been ordered to believe by mass machine gunning media messages. Many of us were once like you. We woke up eventually. And the brutal reality hit us hard. Once we understood all the pieces of the puzzle and why professional lawyers and doctors were no longer able to practice. And make no mistake both those professions are inextricably linked. The Hippocratic Oath has become The Hypocritical Oath. And those who dare to stand up and be counted ... THEY are the ones taking on the lie and taking their accusers to court! Not the other way around as you keep stating in the topic next door! Can you stop stalking me?  I'm one of the few people here without any fake accounts, it's just me.  We can have a differing opinion, we don't all have to agree, but you're starting to dive head first into what the eSaftey Commissioner outlines as cyberbullying. I don't understand your obsession with me, but it's starting to get uncomfortable. Stop with the pathetic histrionics which only turn up when you've been pwned! You should feel uncomfortable when your BS is called out. And you should feel uncomfortable when you post links which undermine the BS you post NOT support it. You should feel uncomfortable when you're outted for illogic reasoning. You should feel uncomfortable when you slur others online based on lies which are not substantiated by links you hope people won't click on. Now .... read my last post. Notice what I stated to you? Stop deflecting and respond to the posts directed at you. Otherwise go post in some cooking topic. And even there you had better not post BS either.

Sorry, dear, you're right. I misread Hypocritical Oath. Good point. I'll head over to the cooking forum.

Miam miam, no?

aquascoot wrote on Mar 31^st, 2022 at 12:11pm:

bobby and myself saw the evidence where bobby posed a question to greg who then replied in the first person but had logged on as jim the evidence was crystal clear

Shall we let FD decide this?

Are you man enough to take my challenge?

A simple yes or no will suffice.

Dnarever wrote on Mar 31^st, 2022 at 11:41am:

aquascoot wrote on Mar 31st, 2022 at 11:25am: Gregory is Jim lahey but I believe the marsupial is a separate species Claiming that Greg is Jim is about the same (maybe less likely) than saying Aquascoot is Lisa. Are you?

I swear on my mother's life and children's' lives that I don't have socks on this or any other forum.

I'm willing to let FD investigate and then delete the account of the person who's lying.

Strangely, nobody will take me up on my offer.

That tells you everything you need to know.

greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 31^st, 2022 at 3:02pm:

aquascoot wrote on Mar 31st, 2022 at 12:11pm: bobby and myself saw the evidence where bobby posed a question to greg who then replied in the first person but had logged on as jim the evidence was crystal clear Shall we let FD decide this? Are you man enough to take my challenge? A simple yes or no will suffice.

why would FD get rid of you.

just like "processed junk food " is bad for you but very additctive

"processed junk comments" are bad for you but very addictive.

twitter, facebook, the mainstream media just want "addicted eyeballs'

and most people , living the life of pure garbage, have no interest in meaningful dialogue.

they like one liners and nasty simplistic comments (such as your 120,000) because they are easy to digest.
they arent good for them, but who ever said people do whats good for them

if they did whats good for them they would be into climbing the narrow road to success, not "vibing" with your childish one liners.

still it makes Freediver ad revenue, so he is no different from zuck, jack dorsey and tracey grimshaw

aquascoot wrote on Mar 31^st, 2022 at 12:11pm:

bobby and myself saw the evidence where bobby posed a question to greg who then replied in the first person but had logged on as jim the evidence was crystal clear

::)

---

aquascoot wrote on Mar 31^st, 2022 at 4:30pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 31st, 2022 at 3:02pm: aquascoot wrote on Mar 31st, 2022 at 12:11pm: bobby and myself saw the evidence where bobby posed a question to greg who then replied in the first person but had logged on as jim the evidence was crystal clear Shall we let FD decide this? Are you man enough to take my challenge? A simple yes or no will suffice. why would FD get rid of you.

He wouldn't, because I don't run socks.

So, up for the challenge?

https://c.tenor.com/5GCM0G9OiEEAAAAM/chicken-chicken-bro.gif

Looks like horseboy is running away scared again...alpha male indeed...

aquascoot wrote on Mar 31^st, 2022 at 12:11pm:

bobby and myself saw the evidence where bobby posed a question to greg who then replied in the first person but had logged on as jim the evidence was crystal clear

You have evidence that they are good at pulling your chain.

aquascoot wrote on Mar 31^st, 2022 at 4:30pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 31st, 2022 at 3:02pm: aquascoot wrote on Mar 31st, 2022 at 12:11pm: bobby and myself saw the evidence where bobby posed a question to greg who then replied in the first person but had logged on as jim the evidence was crystal clear Shall we let FD decide this? Are you man enough to take my challenge? A simple yes or no will suffice. why would FD get rid of you. just like "processed junk food " is bad for you but very additctive "processed junk comments" are bad for you but very addictive. twitter, facebook, the mainstream media just want "addicted eyeballs' and most people , living the life of pure garbage, have no interest in meaningful dialogue. they like one liners and nasty simplistic comments (such as your 120,000) because they are easy to digest. they arent good for them, but who ever said people do whats good for them if they did whats good for them they would be into climbing the narrow road to success, not "vibing" with your childish one liners. still it makes Freediver ad revenue, so he is no different from zuck, jack dorsey and tracey grimshaw

Just so. FD, you're GUILTY. You're mixing our words up, just like Google, Bing and Yahoo.

Aquascoot's finally "woken up."

You?

FD understands what all media understand.

sober rational debate is boring.

clickbait and flamewars and being as extreme as possible gets you attention.

and the whole internet is based, not on sober education but on attention seeking .

Guess what? Ivermectin still doesn't work for treating COVID-19.

Effect of Early Treatment with Ivermectin among Patients with Covid-19

March 30, 2022


Quote:

A total of 3515 patients were randomly assigned to receive ivermectin (679 patients), placebo (679), or another intervention (2157). Overall, 100 patients (14.7%) in the ivermectin group had a primary-outcome event, as compared with 111 (16.3%) in the placebo group (relative risk, 0.90; 95% Bayesian credible interval, 0.70 to 1.16). Of the 211 primary-outcome events, 171 (81.0%) were hospital admissions. Findings were similar to the primary analysis in a modified intention-to-treat analysis that included only patients who received at least one dose of ivermectin or placebo (relative risk, 0.89; 95% Bayesian credible interval, 0.69 to 1.15) and in a per-protocol analysis that included only patients who reported 100% adherence to the assigned regimen (relative risk, 0.94; 95% Bayesian credible interval, 0.67 to 1.35). There were no significant effects of ivermectin use on secondary outcomes or adverse events.

Quote:

Treatment with ivermectin did not result in a lower incidence of medical admission to a hospital due to progression of Covid-19 or of prolonged emergency department observation among outpatients with an early diagnosis of Covid-19.

But, I'm sure aqua and others will still be pushing Ivermectin as a COVID-19 treatment for the rest of this year (at least).

Watch them ask all the questions they refused to and don't care about when it's a study they can manipulate the findings to attempt to show that it works, even if the auther tells them they cannot reach that conclusion, to try and dismiss this.

aquascoot wrote on Apr 1^st, 2022 at 5:56am:

FD understands what all media understand. sober rational debate is boring. clickbait and flamewars and being as extreme as possible gets you attention. and the whole internet is based, not on sober education but on attention seeking .

Just so. It's FD's business model, after all.

But I'm curious. Which American prez extolled the same virtues?

Do you remember?

Carl D wrote on Apr 1^st, 2022 at 10:31am:

Guess what? Ivermectin still doesn't work for treating COVID-19. Effect of Early Treatment with Ivermectin among Patients with Covid-19 March 30, 2022 Quote: A total of 3515 patients were randomly assigned to receive ivermectin (679 patients), placebo (679), or another intervention (2157). Overall, 100 patients (14.7%) in the ivermectin group had a primary-outcome event, as compared with 111 (16.3%) in the placebo group (relative risk, 0.90; 95% Bayesian credible interval, 0.70 to 1.16). Of the 211 primary-outcome events, 171 (81.0%) were hospital admissions. Findings were similar to the primary analysis in a modified intention-to-treat analysis that included only patients who received at least one dose of ivermectin or placebo (relative risk, 0.89; 95% Bayesian credible interval, 0.69 to 1.15) and in a per-protocol analysis that included only patients who reported 100% adherence to the assigned regimen (relative risk, 0.94; 95% Bayesian credible interval, 0.67 to 1.35). There were no significant effects of ivermectin use on secondary outcomes or adverse events. [quote]Treatment with ivermectin did not result in a lower incidence of medical admission to a hospital due to progression of Covid-19 or of prolonged emergency department observation among outpatients with an early diagnosis of Covid-19.

But, I'm sure aqua and others will still be pushing Ivermectin as a COVID-19 treatment for the rest of this year (at least).[/quote]

Indeed, but why?

That's what I don't understand.

Why do they want to push a drug that isn't effective?

It makes no sense.

We all want it to work against COVID, that's for sure, but the science shows us it doesn't.

greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 1^st, 2022 at 1:47pm:

Carl D wrote on Apr 1st, 2022 at 10:31am: Guess what? Ivermectin still doesn't work for treating COVID-19. Effect of Early Treatment with Ivermectin among Patients with Covid-19 March 30, 2022 Quote: A total of 3515 patients were randomly assigned to receive ivermectin (679 patients), placebo (679), or another intervention (2157). Overall, 100 patients (14.7%) in the ivermectin group had a primary-outcome event, as compared with 111 (16.3%) in the placebo group (relative risk, 0.90; 95% Bayesian credible interval, 0.70 to 1.16). Of the 211 primary-outcome events, 171 (81.0%) were hospital admissions. Findings were similar to the primary analysis in a modified intention-to-treat analysis that included only patients who received at least one dose of ivermectin or placebo (relative risk, 0.89; 95% Bayesian credible interval, 0.69 to 1.15) and in a per-protocol analysis that included only patients who reported 100% adherence to the assigned regimen (relative risk, 0.94; 95% Bayesian credible interval, 0.67 to 1.35). There were no significant effects of ivermectin use on secondary outcomes or adverse events. [quote]Treatment with ivermectin did not result in a lower incidence of medical admission to a hospital due to progression of Covid-19 or of prolonged emergency department observation among outpatients with an early diagnosis of Covid-19. But, I'm sure aqua and others will still be pushing Ivermectin as a COVID-19 treatment for the rest of this year (at least).

Indeed, but why?

That's what I don't understand.

Why do they want to push a drug that isn't effective?

It makes no sense.

We all want it to work against COVID, that's for sure, but the science shows us it doesn't.

[/quote]

Oh, that's easy. What do you do to insert the culture wars into a health crisis?

You brand chemicals as virtuous. Hydroxychloraquine, Ivermectin, zinc, vitamin D, all nice, useless medicines that do nothing to stop covid.

But then, who said it was about stopping covid? It's about obeying Dear Leader.

That's all.

Karnal wrote on Apr 1^st, 2022 at 1:57pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 1st, 2022 at 1:47pm: Carl D wrote on Apr 1st, 2022 at 10:31am: Guess what? Ivermectin still doesn't work for treating COVID-19. Effect of Early Treatment with Ivermectin among Patients with Covid-19 March 30, 2022 Quote: A total of 3515 patients were randomly assigned to receive ivermectin (679 patients), placebo (679), or another intervention (2157). Overall, 100 patients (14.7%) in the ivermectin group had a primary-outcome event, as compared with 111 (16.3%) in the placebo group (relative risk, 0.90; 95% Bayesian credible interval, 0.70 to 1.16). Of the 211 primary-outcome events, 171 (81.0%) were hospital admissions. Findings were similar to the primary analysis in a modified intention-to-treat analysis that included only patients who received at least one dose of ivermectin or placebo (relative risk, 0.89; 95% Bayesian credible interval, 0.69 to 1.15) and in a per-protocol analysis that included only patients who reported 100% adherence to the assigned regimen (relative risk, 0.94; 95% Bayesian credible interval, 0.67 to 1.35). There were no significant effects of ivermectin use on secondary outcomes or adverse events. [quote]Treatment with ivermectin did not result in a lower incidence of medical admission to a hospital due to progression of Covid-19 or of prolonged emergency department observation among outpatients with an early diagnosis of Covid-19. But, I'm sure aqua and others will still be pushing Ivermectin as a COVID-19 treatment for the rest of this year (at least). Indeed, but why? That's what I don't understand. Why do they want to push a drug that isn't effective? It makes no sense. We all want it to work against COVID, that's for sure, but the science shows us it doesn't.

Oh, that's easy. What do you do to insert the culture wars into a health crisis?

You brand chemicals as virtuous. Hydroxychloraquine, Ivermectin, zinc, vitamin D, all nice, useless medicines that do nothing to stop covid.

But then, who said it was about stopping covid? It's about obeying Dear Leader.

That's all. [/quote]

Yeah, that's the sad bit - these anti-vaxxers have no interest in anybody else's health & welfare.